[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re[2]: [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee] Re: long tutorials
|
RG> OSGi has 5 long submissions for 1 slot, and 2 short submissions
RG> for its 2 slots. I doubt Peter will find a slot to contribute.
I am not sure I follow?
I am a bit confused (normal state of mind though). Can I just pick?
Any volunteers that want to help me to handle the fire I will
undoubtedly get from the bloggers? :-)
There was a discussion about donating a slot to the OSGi track?
Kind regards,
Peter Kriens
RG>
RG> Well, it seems Data Tooling is locked up: 3 submissions for 3 slots, all are already ACCEPTED.
RG>
RG> C/C++ has 4 submissions and 2 slots.
RG>
RG> Mashup has 2 submissions and 3 slots, so we have a Short
RG> Tutorial to spare. Also, Im not sure we need both 3636
RG> (Enterprise Team Development with Maven and Eclipse) in Mashup,
RG> along with 3639 (Team Collaboration with Eclipse and Maven) in Fundamentals. Thoughts?
RG>
RG> Fundamentals has the 2 Long Tutorials submitted (below) with
RG> only 1 allocation. There is a Short Tutorial alternative (3583)
RG> to the PDE Build Long Tutorial submission. Also, 3674 mentions
RG> they can switch to a short (plus, theres a book for this one). I
RG> know youre a fan of the Long Tutorial, but it seems we can fit
RG> nearly all into the schedule if we convert the long to shorts, and
RG> use the Maven submission in Mashup.
RG>
RG> The Java track now has 6 short submissions for 1 long and 2
RG> short allocations, which Philippe has already asked about
RG> converting to 5 shorts. Not much play here.
RG>
RG> Mobile and Embedded has 4 short submissions for 3 slots, so
RG> again if the content looks good to Doug, not much play.
RG>
RG> Modeling has 2 long submissions for 1 slot, and 5 short
RG> submissions for 2 slots. Definitely no play here.
RG>
RG> OSGi has 5 long submissions for 1 slot, and 2 short submissions
RG> for its 2 slots. I doubt Peter will find a slot to contribute.
RG>
RG> Rich Client has 2 long submissions (below) for 1 allocation, and
RG> 5 short submissions for 3 slots. One of the longs has a short alternative.
RG>
RG> Reporting and Test & Performance each have the exact number of
RG> submissions for their allocations. Are these looking good for acceptance?
RG>
RG> SOA Development has 2 short submissions for their 2 short allocation.
RG>
RG> Technology and Scripting has 5 short submissions and 3 slots. Bjorn has voted on 2 already.
RG>
RG> Tools has 4 short submissions with 3 slots, and 3 with PC member votes.
RG>
RG> And then theres Web Development. Tim has already expressed the
RG> need for more slots as well, but it looks from the above that
RG> theres only a short tutorial slot from Mashup up for grabs; that
RG> is, unless others on this list chime in soon.
RG>
RG> Considering what our public conscience has to say
RG> (http://wassim-melhem.blogspot.com/2006/11/elephant-in-room.html)
RG> we should also consider the point regarding the balance of our
RG> tracks based on expected popularity. Are we missing the mark?
RG>
RG> Thanks,
RG> Rich
RG>
RG>
RG> On 11/13/06 9:43 PM, "Jeff McAffer" <Jeff_McAffer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
RG>
RG>
RG> Long tutorials are a problem it seems. While there aren't
RG> necessarily alot of proposals in some of the tracks, the propsoals
RG> are quite attractive. Some examples,
RG>
RG> In the Fundamentals track there are two long tutorials that IMHO
RG> are both of significant interest
RG> http://eclipsezilla.eclipsecon.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3635 PDE Build and build clinic
RG> http://eclipsezilla.eclipsecon.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3674
RG> Building Commercial-Quality Eclipse Plug-Ins
RG>
RG> Similarly, there are two particularly interesting long tutorial proposals in the RCP track
RG> http://eclipsezilla.eclipsecon.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3585
RG> RCP Development Using the Workbench and JFace
RG> http://eclipsezilla.eclipsecon.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3667
RG> Developing Eclipse Rich-Client Applications
RG>
RG> And in the OSGi Track there are several long tutorial proposals but in particular
RG> http://eclipsezilla.eclipsecon.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3630
RG> Building Service Oriented Bundle Architectures
RG> http://eclipsezilla.eclipsecon.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3607
RG> Building Server-Side Eclipse based web applications
RG>
RG> So with the lack of long slots, I am torn as to how to choose.
RG> In the OSGi track it the presenters of 3607 may be willing to
RG> split into two shorts, one for basic technology and another for
RG> more advanced uses. That's just me smokin' up ideas. For the
RG> others, these kinds of topics really do press for full day, hands on work.
RG>
RG> Thoughts?
RG>
RG> Jeff
RG>
RG>
RG>
RG>
RG> "Tim Wagner" <twagner@xxxxxxx>
RG> Sent by:
RG> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 11/13/2006 08:40 PM
RG> Please respond to
RG> Eclipsecon Program Committee list
RG> <eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
RG>
RG> To
RG> "Eclipsecon Program Committee list"
RG> <eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
RG> cc
RG> Subject
RG> RE: [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee] Re: long tutorials
RG>
RG>
RG>
RG>
RG> I could easily fill more short tutorial slots if someone wants
RG> to donate them - with AJAX, JSF, and JPA sub-projects all
RG> incubating in WTP plus our existing technologies, we have 7 strong
RG> abstracts that could all easily merit inclusion.
RG>
RG> I can also supply 2 long tutorials (i.e., 1 additional over my
RG> allotted one) if there is an opportunity to do so.
RG>
RG> -----Original Message-----
RG> From:
RG> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
RG> [mailto:eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard Gronback
RG> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 5:24 PM
RG> To: Eclipsecon Program Committee list
RG> Subject: Re: [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee] Re: long tutorials
RG>
RG> Are there any other slots we'd like to reallocate? Do we all have
RG> interesting/valuable content to fill our currently allocated slots? If not,
RG> can they be contributed to another track? Which tracks (really) need
RG> additional slots?
RG>
RG> Thanks,
RG> Rich
RG>
RG> On 11/13/06 4:06 PM, "Philippe P Mulet"
RG> <philippe_mulet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
RG>
>> About the Java track, I agree we should look at converting the long slot
>> into 3 short ones. The nice thing about short tutorials is that you may
>> attend several in one day.
>> Also, I do not see any submission on some JDT fundamentals. I think someone
>> on the JDT team should submit one, even if a bit late.
>> This extra contribution could be swallowed by the long->short conversion.
>>
>> Philippe
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jeff McAffer
>> <Jeff_McAffer@ca.
>> ibm.com> To
>> Sent by: Eclipsecon Program Committee list
>> eclipse.org-eclip <eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-com
>> secon-program-com mittee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> mittee-bounces@ec cc
>> lipse.org
>> Subject
>> Re:
>> 11/11/2006 04:31 [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-com
>> AM mittee] Re: long tutorials
>>
>>
>> Please respond to
>> Eclipsecon
>> Program Committee
>> list
>> <eclipse.org-ecli
>> psecon-program-co
>> mmittee@eclipse.o
>> rg>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> There seems to be a lack of long tutorial slots. Actually I could have
>> sworn that there were 9 but now I see there is only 8?! Perhaps one got
>> converted? I am reluctant to convert such a scarce and valuable resource.
>> Swapping perhaps but conversion is a challenge IMHO. Several tracks would
>> benefit from having additional long slots. I wouldn't begin to know how to
>> allocate since we all have our own biases.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>> Richard Gronback
>> <richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent by: To
>> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-comm Eclipsecon Program Committee
>> ittee-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx list
>> <eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program
>> -committee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> 11/10/2006 06:29 PM cc
>>
>> Subject
>> Please respond to Re:
>> Eclipsecon Program Committee list [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program
>> <eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-co -committee] Re: long tutorials
>> mmittee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Looking at the Java track, it seems with 0 long and 5 short submissions (1
>> long and 2 short allocations), Philippe may want to convert its 1 long into
>> 3 shorts as well? (although, 3639 appears to be more of a Fundamental
>> topic)
>>
>> OSGi and Web Development appear to be the most popular, in terms of
>> submissions and the need for additional allocations.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Rich
>>
>>
>> On 11/10/06 3:46 PM, "Richard Gronback" <richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Ive updated the submission page to reflect this change (2 Mashup Long
>> tutorials -> 1 RCP Long Tutorial + 3 Mashup Short Tutorials).
>>
>> Best,
>> Rich
>>
>>
>> On 11/10/06 10:25 AM, "Chris Aniszczyk" <zx@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Sure, I share this sentiment.
>>
>> I would also consider doing some slight triage on
>> http://eclipsezilla.eclipsecon.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3660 to move this over
>> to Mashup which needs a bit more love.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> ---
>> Chris Aniszczyk | IBM Lotus | Eclipse Committer | +1 860 839 2465
>>
>> (Embedded image moved to file: pic05698.gif)Richard Gronback ---11/10/2006
>> 09:14:53 AM---Sorry, I guess I had it in my mind that wed already
>> allocated one of the Mashup long tutorials to RCP ;)
>>
>> From:Richard Gronback <richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To:Jeff McAffer <Jeff_McAffer@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc:"'Bjorn Freeman-Benson'" <bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Donald
>> Smith <donald.smith@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Doug Gaff'" <doug.gaff@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> Doug Schaefer <DSchaefer@xxxxxxx>, Ed Merks <merks@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'John
>> Graham'" <jograham@xxxxxxxxxx>, John Duimovich <John_Duimovich@xxxxxxxxxx>,
>> "'Oisin Hurley'" <ohurley@xxxxxxxx>, Peter Kriens <Peter.Kriens@xxxxxxxxx>,
>> "'Philippe P Mulet'" <philippe_mulet@xxxxxxxxxx>, Scott Rosenbaum
>> <scottr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Doddapaneni, Srinivas P'"
>> <srinivas.p.doddapaneni@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Tim Wagner'" <twagner@xxxxxxx>, Chris
>> Aniszczyk/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
>> Date:11/10/2006 09:14 AM
>> Subject:Re: long tutorials
>>
>>
>> Sorry, I guess I had it in my mind that wed already allocated one of the
>> Mashup long tutorials to RCP ;)
>>
>> +1 on the recommendation to re-allocate 1 long tutorial to RCP from Mashup
>> and split the remaining long into 3 shorts. Chris?
>>
>> - Rich
>>
>>
>> On 11/10/06 8:34 AM, "Jeff McAffer" <Jeff_McAffer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Richard Gronback <richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 11/10/2006
>> 08:16:46 AM:
>>> Bjorn, can you please help us get a mailing list set up?
>>
>> +1
>>
>>> It sounds like Jeff is wishing there were a day-long RCP tutorial, but
>>> cannot find someone to submit one (?). Of course, we're free to shift
>>> allocations in order to get the best program, so whatever agreements you
>>> come up with is fine, provided we fit our room constraints.
>>
>> No, the opposite. I have two long tutorial submissions and no slots to put
>> them in.
>>
>>> Does anyone have a long tutorial they think might be more appropriate for
>>> the Mashup long tutorial, or should we split this into 3 short tutorials?
>> I
>>> was considering asking the submitters of
>>> http://eclipsezilla.eclipsecon.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3627
>> <http://eclipsezilla.eclipsecon.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3627> to add a
>> connection
>>> to WTP/DTP/etc. in order to make it more of a true (cross-top-level)
>> mashup.
>>
>> I think you should donate that slot to the RCP track :-)
>>
>>> Something Jeff asked about yesterday was the PC Voting, which I agree
>> should
>>> be open to all PC members, not just recognized by reps from their
>> respective
>>> tracks. For most tracks, having a single PC rep vote and then a status
>>> change for acceptance doesn't make sense. Bjorn, can we make this change
>>> and therefore make the PC votes more general?
>>
>> +1 This would allow the PC to operate in a more cohesive way.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Richard C. Gronback
>> Borland Software Corporation
>> richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> +1 860 227 9215_______________________________________________
>> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee mailing list
>> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-commit
>> tee
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee mailing list
>> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-commit
>> tee
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee mailing list
>> eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-commit
>> tee
RG>
RG>
RG> --
RG> Richard C. Gronback
RG> Borland Software Corporation
RG> richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx
RG> +1 860 227 9215
RG>
RG>
--
Peter Kriens Tel +33467542167
9C, Avenue St. Drézéry AOL,Yahoo: pkriens
34160 Beaulieu, France ICQ 255570717
Skype pkriens Fax +1 8153772599
